News-Record.com

??????? Twisted sense of humor?

This is NOT a burning cross. WHERE on do you get that?

It is a cross covered with Christmas lights. I actually own one (I bought it several years ago at a Christian bookstore in Winston-Salem).

I thought it was beautiful - and displayed it from my kitchen window one year.

Guess that makes me a "class A moron".

You are right.

It is not, in fact, a burning cross.

It's just that the picture makes it look exactly like a burning cross. That's why it's weird and funny.

You could also dress up in a white sheet with a big pointy-headed white mask and call yourself a ghost at Halloween. If you didn't get why someone might find that offensive/unintentionally hilarious I would, indeed, laugh at you.

mary,
you will always find some who wish to misrepresent the intentions of others and then when caught, continue to fling more pooo in your direction.

Sort of odd how the birth of Jesus should be celebrated using a symbol of his torture and death. Using pretty pretty lights. :)

It appears a small Sunday School lesson is warranted here on the Front Pew.

We Christians celebrate Easter too, namtac - when Christ was crucified on the cross - but then rose from the dead.

And you're right, He suffered terribly. At our hands. For us. He was, IN FACT, born to die.

It IS the reason behind the season.

And yes, Joe, I AM right. It is, IN FACT, NOT a burning cross (I feel like I'm saying, "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus").

We are, IN FACT, at least a generation or so removed from the burning cross - or a least I throught we were - because two weeks ago, the United States of America put a black man in the White House.

Hint, hint. Things have changed.

What is truly sad and PATHETIC and decidedly unfunny about this is that so many are are so quick to assign negative conotations to something that was conceived without negative intent. It is a clear demonstration that so many in our society are DETERMINED to keep hate alive.

As I said on my blog, "You know, if those "offended" really wanted to take the Cross (and the power) back from the KKK, they'd buy one of these Christmas crosses and display it on their lawn . . . a lighted cross (of hope) as opposed to a burning one (of hate)."

But hey Joe, if you want, keep playing that tired faux victim/race card. It's so indicative of CHANGE.

And it looks as good on you as if you had put that pointy white hood on at Halloween.

WHY is the N&R letting you put this stuff up?

Mary Johnson apparently doesn't have the same cross- the ad copy says the AFA's website is
the ONLY place to get it.

And this particular cross is 5 1/2 feet high ( with 210 lights.)

A cross that tall which has that many lights is going to look alarming from even a short distance.

Alice makes a point I thought was obvious. It's not that the cross lights up. You see that a lot. It's that the cross is 5 1/2 feet tall and covered in the sort of small lights that, even at the distance from which the photo was taken, makes it appear to be on fire.

I'm apparently not the only person who thinks so -- before I could post it yesterday three different readers e-mailed it to me saying the very first thing they thought when seeing it was: "Oh no...a burning cross..."

Which, unfortunately, we're not anything like a generation beyond. The election of a black president certainly should point to our being past it -- but in some quarters, and quite recently, it has actually instigated some cross burnings.

I'd love for us to never think about burning crosses or the the people who use them to terrorize others -- but we're going to have to put it a little further behind us than last week before I look at a picture like that and don't think: "Is that really the best idea?"

Mary, I'm afraid you're wrong about us being even one generation removed from burning crosses. Such open and aggressive displays of hatred are less common than they once were, but they are certainly NOT a thing of the past, no matter who is in the White House. They just tend to happen on a smaller scale. I'm sure anyone who buys this decoration has good intentions when they display it, but with the white lights and the jagged shape the bulbs create, it does resemble a burning cross to me.

Joe, I can always tell when a Front Pew post is going to have your name on it.

closer to home, but a bit more remote in time ( late Dec 2004, iirc) 3 were burned in Durham NC
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/117582/

' generations' must be shorter in some families than others, I guess.

This is the height of political correctness driven to excess.

Killian compares it to a cross, Dr. J sets him straight, and, as if on cue, the "Intolerable Racism" cheerleading crowd shows up.

Why am i not surprised anymore at the arrogance and ignorance these people promulagate?

Aside to Killian: Stop being the smart-ass punk. You're not fooling anyone.

Bubba:

I didn't compare it to a cross. It is a cross.

I compared it to a burning cross.

Because it looks like one.

I'm not saying these things should be banned or that the people making them are racist -- I'm saying they overlooked its strong resemblance to a burning cross. It's the kind of thing you see on Jay Leno's show not because advertisers are racist or sexist or filled with hate but because they overlook embarrassing things that are later obvious.

I'm hardly the only one who's noticed the resemblance. Some people are suggesting the resemblance is intentional. I'm not. I'm saying it's unfortunate and ridiculous.

bubba said " Killian compares it to a cross."

bubba, if it's not a cross, then what is it? A lit up letter " T"? A flashy horseshoe pitching goal?

i left out "burning" before cross in my last post.

What's the matter, Killian?

Been a little light on the "Intolerable racism" theme lately, and JR had to give you a pep talk, hence your post?

The implications in your words are highly offensive.

Burning crosses ARE highly offensive to many, bubba. I think the only people who approve of them are members of the Klan.

"Burning crosses ARE highly offensive to many, bubba. I think the only people who approve of them are members of the Klan. '

Why do I even bother?

I'll resist the temptation to use the end of the first line Killian wrote on this post.

Kitty:

I usually only post here when I have something I think is extraordinarily interesting to talk about.

To me religion is fascinating -- and conversations about it usually end up baffling me. We've had some really good ones here -- does God talk to people, and what if you think he's talking to you?

But just as often people who called the N&R's decision not to run the infamous Danish Mohammad cartoons censorship will question why conversations like this are allowed to happen on the site.

To me it's just important that questioning religion or religious orthodoxy or pointing out the weird or crazy things about religion we stop noticing not be mischaracterized as religious bigotry.

I don't think this light-up cross is bigotry...but I do think overlooking its pretty obvious resemblance to a burning cross is worth chuckling at.

Namtac said: Sort of odd how the birth of Jesus should be celebrated using a symbol of his torture and death. Using pretty pretty lights. :)

The cross was his reason for coming in the first place namtac. Pretty powerful reminder, I'd say.
As one man once said, "it goes to show that it isn't the love of God that men fear but rather the icarnation of God."

The cross moves from the non-threatening cuddly babe in the manger to the death of God incarnate for humanity's sin. The cross: the time and place where my debt for sin was paid -in full - beautiful.

Tony

Very heavy sigh.

Alice, the lighted Christmas Cross is available in at least two sizes - small (the one I own) and large. It's actually been around for several years - but only suddenly became a PTSD-generating symbol of evil and hatred AFTER we managed to put a black man in the White House.

Kitty, in order to move beyond the past, we have to MOVE beyond it. In equating a Cross wrapped in Christmas lights to a burning one (something that never, ever occurred to me), you are demonstrating your own lack of vision and inability to get beyond your own prejudices. You're putting thoughts and motives in people's hearts and minds that simply were/are not there. It's sad and divisive.

And (as Bubba points out) it's so N&R.

Moreover, it's just not funny (Joe). Not in ANY way.

And Joe, I still have to ask WHERE are your Editors? The N&R couldn't publish the Danish cartoons because they might offend somebody - - yet you can publish beyond-offensive drivel like this on their supposedly religiously-themed blog?

Let's face it people (Killian in particular), you jumped on this train without really thinking about the message YOU are sending:

And that is: "We cannot be - we are not capable of - being the change in the world we want to see. We can only see burning crosses."

As I said on another blog running with this theme (you may "not be the only one", but you're still WRONG): The Christian Cross is the most powerful symbol (of/for good) in existance. The KKK does not, IN ANY WAY, “own” it - they hijacked it and used/abused it for hate. And if you just let them have it, THEY WIN.

I find it very sad that those talking up hope seem so determined to focus on hate - and are so bound by it.

The real/true meaning of this Cross sets one free.

In the wake of Barack Obama's election to the highest office in this land, if I were a black American Christian, I would go out and buy one of these things - the biggest one I could find - and plant it in MY OWN yard - as a symbol of hope and love - and (yes) power and defiance.

I would "shine my light" on hate.

In short, I would take the Cross back from the Klan - for Christians and Christmas.

But what do I know? I'm just a "Class A Moron".

Joe Killian swings and MISSES on this one.

Dr. J, why should we have to point out the obvious here?

The agenda politics and phoney pontification of the original poster and several of the people who responded are painfully obvious.

The entire premise of the original entry is ludicrous, and deserves all the scorn we can give it.

It's "lighting a cross", not burning a cross. It's an old Scottish practice that the White Trash On Parade appropriated for themselves.

A modern day equivalent would be to put a cross on a hill and shine a light on it.

Actually, I am of Scottish/Irish/English descent - the dirt poor (or as our enlightened Hank says, "white trash") variety that was run out of those countries on a rail - or had to choose between death and famine.

And I'm damned proud of it.

I'm going to share something from another thread I'm following on this subject:

(justBob): " If you feel it (displaying the cross) is appropriate and would help you to display your beliefs then more power to you. If I feel it’s appropriate to comment on how this product may be misinterpreted by others then more power to me."

The problem I have with that is that justBob and others here/there find their "power" in the misinterpretation . . . no matter that someone they've directly or indirectly assaulted as an ignoramus or (redneck) racist has had the courage to stand up and tell them that they could not be more wrong . . . ergo their "power" is based ON A LIE.

Moreover, they seem to be proud of clinging to and reveling in the lie. They are "better" than those who might choose to see the hope and beauty in this simple decoration rather than the hate.

And I just don't get it. Indeed, I don't want to get it.

While Killian and his ilk are ranting about something that is not there, consider this: A burning cross did not even cross the mind of the lady who designed this piece. And if she is donating parts of the proceeds for the sale to charities, what does all this hate-mongering do to that?

As for "free speech", from a comment/response to Bubba (born of frustration) that I posted on my own blog: These people, seeing what is not there, clearly want me to sit down and shut up for saying something I did not say/intend to say (by displaying the Christmas Cross). This is discourse in America.

It's NOT working for me.

As I said before. I own one of those crosses. I bought it the Christmas after my Dad died. And it gave me so much peace, just to turn it on in the dark and bask in the glow and contemplate the love of my earthly Father and my Heavenly One. But YOU would take that away with your hatred and vitriol.

And one more time (to drive home the point): the Christmas Cross reminds us that the Manger has no meaning apart from the Cross.

Dr. Mary:

You obviously feel very strongly about this -- but I think you're taking it more seriously than it was intended. The point of my post: this looks like a burning cross, a conclusion to which a large number of people have come and so not an uncommon interpretation. It may not look that way at all to you -- and that may have something to do with your familiarity with the object beyond the picture. But the manufacturers might have avoided the interpretation -- and unintentional amusement of a large number of people - by looking at it the way a non-religious person might.

They don't have to, of course - and I'm not suggesting a law or a protest. I'm just shaking my head at it and letting out a chuckle.

I know religion is always touchy, but I'd have a hard time imagining people sitting at home watching Jay Leno mock unintentionally funny advertisements and screaming at their televisions: "YOU'RE DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRETING THE PICTURE! YOU AND YOUR ILK ARE DISGUSTING! IT'S CLEARLY JUST TALKING ABOUT A SAUSAGE!"

Talking to a religious colleague about it this morning (she also just saw a Christmas decoration) I heard a good point: religion is sometimes funny -- but it's less funny to religious people. If you're going to mock something that is religious, it's not the same as mocking clothing or pop culture. It's more important than that to many people.

When you're not religious, it's easy to forget that.

But when you're religious, it's also easy to forget that non-religious people will often see things that you don't as well.

I am taking it VERY seriously, Anon 11:25.

You see, we're talking about THE Cross. And yes, I'm kind of familiar with it.

In this case, I'm not "forgeting" or "misunderstanding" or "misunderestimating" anything (and I haven't watched Leno in years, except to see his inteview with John McCain, so I don't know what you're referencing).

Once again, this Cross IS NOT BURNING.

I don't like what the KKK did/does with their cross. I don't like what Joe Killian/THIS NEWSPAPER/other lefty bloggers (I actually don't think the "misunderestimating" contingent is all that large) have done with this one.

Furthermore, hate-mongering, mean-spirited ridicule and determined ignorance (because make no mistake that's what it IS) like this does not get to stand unanswered. You don't get to rationalize it all away - or say "bygones".

In essence, Joe Killian BURNED this Cross. And he's been called on it.

"Less funny"? It's so totally NOT FUNNY.

Killian was clearly banking on the notion that anyone who displayed this Cross would cower in fear at his "enlightened" assertion that it had racist connotations - and that no one would talk back. We Chrisitans, you see, are supposed to turn the other cheek. Well, I'm talking back. I am perhaps not as good at "turning the other cheek" as I should be. But then, I'm a work in progress.

Christians everywhere - be they red or yellow, black or white - understand the true meaning of the Cross - be it a fancy lighted Christmas decoration - or two sticks tied together and stuck in the dirt.

As for "religious" vs. "non-religious" people, I think those of us who do believe are sick and tired of being slammed/maligned/ridiculed by those who don't . . . while those who don't hypocritically preach "tolerance" and understanding of all faiths.

Well, they might just start with Christians.

Back to intentions, Joe Killian did not even try to understand/see the other point of view before he put this nasty beasty up (on a religious blog no less) - indeed, I'll just bet he hoped it would "go viral" and he could be famous.

I am SICK of this race-baiting garbage from the N&R.

Dr. Mary:

Last thing I'll say on this:

I certainly wasn't banking on no one "talking back" - I post here because I like the discussion.

This isn't a religion blog. It's a blog about religious issues. That means that it's not beholden to any particular religious view and that Nancy, the blog's originator and a committed Christian herself (and one of the best examples I know), has encouraged a diversity of viewpoints.

In this post I gave insight into the not uncommon non-religious view of a giant cross lit up at night: it can and sometimes does remind people of a burning cross. I didn't do this with the hope that it would "go viral" -- there were many other bloggers and e-mails from readers pointing this out before me. I did it because I thought the difference of religious opinion about something like this (it's THE cross on one side, and that's always good vs. the cross can and is sometimes used to intimidate and that can be unintentionally troublesome) was interesting and might prompt some interesting discussion.

Not the first time I thought we'd get discussion on a blog and we instead got shouting matches. It happens.

I'm not shouting Joe.

I'm telling you that you were one-hundred-percent WRONG on this one . . . from the (inflamatory) title of the post to its premise, you clearly intended to inflame opposing viewpoints.

You did not just swing and miss. You struck out.

As for the parsing of words over what "religious" means as it applies to this blog, your post was not about encouraging a "diversity of viewpoints". It was about driving a wedge between races - using the Cross.

I suppose it has been an interesting discussion.

I would hope that Nancy, as this blog's originator and a committed Christian (something I do not doubt), has taken you out to the woodshed.

For the record, I would prefer to be called Mary or Dr. Johnson. I do not like the term "Dr. Mary". Like so much about this post/this thread, it feels like an attempt to demean.

And I've had enough of that this week on this blog.

Nancy, black and a Christian, did not "take me to the woodshed" for using the cross to divide people over race.

She thanked me -- again -- for bringing a diversity of views to the blog.

I thanked her -- again -- for encouraging it.

I guess it wasn't the last thing.

"Nancy, black and a Christian, did not "take me to the woodshed" for using the cross to divide people over race."

And that, dear readers, is how one hides behind and plays the race card.

Joe, if what you say is true, then I'm actually very disappointed in Nancy (both as as a Christian and a journalist) for just "thanking" you and not pointing out to you that (1) you might have exercised a little more tact - and, (2) in the interest of "diversity", might have presented something to counter-balance your (very divisive) point of view.

There was another way to present this . . . one that was not so "in-your-face" and mean-spirited . . . one that did not immediately assume that everyone who bought or displays this Cross is a redneck/racist pig.

Again, Joe, I'm angry enough about this nasty post to call you on it. For I've displayed this Cross at Christmas and taken great comfort from it after tremendous loss . . . and I do not like/appreciate you/others making horrible assumptions . . . or putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that were NEVER, EVER there.

It BURNS.

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, I've been to the House of Blues and I have a jacket that says, "Unity in Diversity" (I think I have it on serving plates too).

But sometimes wrong is just wrong.

It would be nice if you could simply say, "I misinterpreted this - and in doing so, I offended people of faith. And I am sorry."

"It would be nice if you could simply say, 'I misinterpreted this - and in doing so, I offended people of faith. And I am sorry.'"

That would be admitting to poor judgment on his part.

It will never happen.

It's pretty clear that a number of N&R people admit to only inconsequential errors, but NEVER to absurdly wrong-headed and obnoxious statements and insinuations, as we see above.

There is ample precedence that establishes that point.

Dr. Johnson:

If I believed that I'd actually misinterpreted something, I'd apologize for it. I don't think I did. There are two ways to view this and we disagree on it. Your asserting that there is but one correct view simply doesn't make it so and doesn't erase the views of the many who have seen the picture and thought it either in bad taste or a humorous oversight by the manufacturer.

I don't seriously assert that it was the intention of the manufacturer to offend people with this -- but that they did offend some people anyway because they overlooked this not uncommon interpretation of their product. Its their right to ignore that viewpoint -- and it's my right to laugh when they do.

I certainly could have been less "in your face" with my view on it. That I can and do apologize for. Suggesting people who couldn't understand why this might be offensive are "Class A morons" certainly wasn't the most effective way to kickstart a conversation about it.

But I'm just not of the opinion that religion or faith deserves some sort of protected status beyond politics or culture generally. Having read angry, in-your-face, name-calling blog posts and comments on politics and current events from both you and Bubba in the past I hope you'll sympathize, even if you don't agree.

It's not strictly true that you have to have religious faith to respect religious faith -- I respect a lot of religious people, religious organizations and the work they do. But I don't see faith as inherently separate from other viewpoints - politics, economics, taste - that we all agree can be part of an argument, part of a joke and even mocked on occasion.

But I do understand that for many, myself sometimes included, it depends on whose ox is being gored.

I don't think Joe misinterpreted the " decoration" at all- I do think someone posting here who says she owns one is very touchy because of HER personal attachment to the one she owns - therefore no one else can say it looks strange or inappropriate because it offends her feelings. This was not a personal attack on anyone, or an attempt to dishonor the loss of her Dad, although she seems to have taken it that way. It was a discussion of what some might call a......
graven image."

In my neighborhood, anyone displaying a 5 1/2 foot lit up cross would be looked on unfavorably for two reasons- from the road, it does look like a burning cross and our neighborhood is comprised of black, white, asian and hispanic residents who would all find that symbolism offensive . Somebody would call the sheriff's department for sure.

That's one reason- the other is the " tacky factor." Pretty wreaths, candles in the windows, menorahs in the windows for Hanukkah, decorated tees in the yard and peace signs- fine. All appropriate here so long as the homeowner doesn't go overboard and keeps things tasteful.

Big lit up "decorations", yards full of lit up doo-dads , seachlight-sized spotlights, inflatable Santas, snowmen, or reindeer, life size Nativity scenes- NO. Just not done.

I am a Sunday School teacher who lives my faith and is proud of it. I don't consider myself "politically correct" and I certainly wouldn't play a race card.

But these crosses do look like they are burning. I have seen them in person and would not want one in my neighborhood. We can express our faith as Christians without this kind of thing. It's all about taste.

But Joe, we have established without any doubt that you DID misinterpret the meaning of this particular Cross (again, not burning) - the concept behind it - and the reason people (yes, Alice, including me) might display it.

In point of fact, Joe, you called them - you called me - "Class A Morons" (on top of the implication that the "morons" were racists). That's a very personal attack. I was deeply offended.

No apology offered. Well good. Fine.

Now, in terms of name-calling, I'll concede that Bubba (my hero) can give as good as he gets, but I try very hard to avoid calling people names (well, except the lying, cheating hospital executives in Asheboro - and maybe a few politicians/public figures when the buttons are really pushed). Yes, I get angry - and yes, I can get "in your face" (as I suppose I am doing here). But in day-to-day blogging discourse, I don't call people "batshit crazy" or "wack-jobs" or "crazy". All you have to do to see that is look at my interactions with Roch Smith, Jr. (who lives to provoke) on several blogs over the last week or so. So you're pretty much projecting/perpetuating a myth there.

Nice try at the deflection, though.

You also keep using the term "not uncommon". I've had a lot of conversations with people (a fairly diverse sampling of the human spectrum) about this blog post/your premise over the last few days, and I can tell you that your "not uncommon" perception is decidedly in the minority. I'd post some of the commentary, but that would be name-calling.

You see, most Christians (whatever their color or background) are going to put the true meaning of the Cross before any meaning that the Klan (or you) might try to assign.

If you look at this Cross now . . . after this discussion . . . and STILL only see a burning cross, well, that seems to me to be your problem.

Alice, Hello, I'm still in the conversation. You don't have to talk about me as if I'm not here. "She" will note that it's a classic way to devalue and demean and disrespect someone, and "she" will call you on that - just as "she" has called Mr. Killian on his hate-mongering (I just don't know what else to call it).

I'm not worshiping the "graven" image, and you know that. But keep promoting discourse and reaching across the aisle by hurling the character slams.

OBTW, if you or anyone else calls the Sheriff's department over a lighted Christmas decoration - that would be really amusing and they would laugh at you. You'd deserve it.

As for a nice dissertation on the "tacky factor", I refer you to this post - where a Baptist minister confronted this same issue (when got a little too "esoteric" when he hung red lights on the Cross): http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24622

Blue Angel, in regards to "taste", he still displays the Cross (draped in white lights) - with a Manger positioned at its base.

"Suggesting people who couldn't understand why this might be offensive are "Class A morons" certainly wasn't the most effective way to kickstart a conversation about it."

That's as close to an apology as we're going to get.

Still no admission of bad judgment for the offensive insinuations........

Actually "That I can and do apologize for" is a direct apology, which is closer.

But this whole thread has gotten kind of silly. It seems like nothing but Joe changing his opinion will satisfy either of you. As a Christian who finds the crosses tacky and potentially offensive I think he is on the mark but could have expressed it better. He said that and apologized for not expressing it better. But from what I've read of you two on the blogs a lecture on tact is kind of a joke.

The poster called Dr. Mary Johnson wrote:
"OBTW, if you or anyone else calls the Sheriff's department over a lighted Christmas decoration - that would be really amusing and they would laugh at you. You'd deserve it."

VERY tactful from one who insists others apologize to her for writing " unfeelingly."

We each have our ideas of what is aesthetically pleasing and appropriate. That big lit up cross, well, to me it's ttfw, as are the inflatable Santas and yards with 500 different lit up displays of teddy bears, santas, deer, angels, dolls and trucks, trains, elves, candy canes, toy soldiers and whatever else Lowe's has for sale.

Alice, I sincerely apologize for my tactlessness. But I still don't think you are going to get anywhere if you call the police over a Christmas decoration. It is my understanding that law enforcement in Greensboro has much bigger problems.

In my earlier comment, I specifically addressed how disrepectful and demeaning you were being by talking about me in the third person - while I'm still engaged in the thread. "The poster called Dr. Mary Johnson", can therefore only be interpreted as an intentional slight. I am Dr. Mary Johnson. I sign my full name. I don't hide behind pseudonyms. I own what I say.

Feel free to talk TO me rather than ABOUT me.

Blue Angel, with your comment, you have now parsed Joe's collosal blogging blunder down to the deflection of "you two" . . . which is exactly what poor, pitiful, picked-upon Mr. Killian wanted . . . no matter how crass and offensive the original post (which he has back-tracked from) was.

The joke is unfortunately on you.

It took 29 comments (one in which he apparently posted anonymously - as Anon 11:25 - then added his name) for Joe Killian to "apologize". But, as Bubba pointed out, Mr. Killian did NOT apologize for (1) completely misinterpreting/misrepresenting the message and intentions of those who display the Cross, or (2) calling those people names.

I am sorry, Blue. But (very respectfully) any sincere apology on Joe's part has to acknowledge that he went WAY over the line in terms of making assumptions and putting words and notions in other people's mouths and yards. When I displayed this cross (from the picture window in my kitchen - in addition to several other less "esoteric" decorations), I was not "burning a cross for Christmas".

Joe was wrong. He was out of line. Period.

While we're parsing, as Bubba pointed out (and as I read the "apology"), what Joe actually apologized for was being "in your face" with his view. But calling people "morons" with "twisted senses of humor" was just an ineffective way to "kickstart" the conversation. Ergo, the "apology" was both indirect and mealy-mouthed.

But that's just my opinion (as the "ox" that was "gored") . . . and (as we've established here) I have the right to have one.

I have stayed on this thread so doggedly because this post was just so totally offensive and over the line - editorially and journalistically.

But I do think I've got the N&R's editorial policies straight now. Publishing the Danish cartoons might have offended a Muslim somewhere who thinks that our new President, and ex/current Secretaries of State are "house negroes".

But publishing race-baiting drivel like this - setting "ignorant", "tasteless", "tacky" Christians up to burn crosses . . . to be "rednecks" and "morons" and "twisted" is just fine.

No harm. No foul.

Hebrews 12:1 -- ...seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.

Nice thought, Gerry.

John 12:46 (Jesus said), "I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness."

jesus died on giant T letter no a cross. therefore we can deduce, church is a big lie.

no roman would build such a complex thing as cross, just to hang out prisoners. You would have to carve both peaces to match etc.
Romans used a straight piece and an overlying piece liek T. I can't possibly see why would anyone ever make the head peace.

Prais the T letter then.